Com. v. Chandler, N.
Com. v. Chandler, N. No. 1903 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Nathan Chandler filed a pro se PCRA petition on August 10, 2015, seeking collateral relief from a judgment of sentence that became final on November 8, 1992.
- The petition was facially untimely under the PCRA one-year filing rule (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)).
- Chandler relied on Commonwealth v. Hopkins (an Alleyne-area decision) to invoke the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) newly-discovered constitutional right exception.
- His sentence included a mandatory life term under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9715 based on a prior third-degree murder conviction.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely; Chandler appealed and the Superior Court reviewed timeliness and applicability of Hopkins/Alleyne.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chandler’s PCRA petition is timely or fits an exception | Hopkins/Alleyne create a new constitutional rule that renders his sentence illegal and triggers § 9545(b)(1)(ii) | Petition is untimely; Hopkins is inapplicable to Chandler’s case and Alleyne/Hopkins do not apply retroactively on collateral review | Petition untimely; no applicable exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Hopkins applies to sentences not involving § 6317 | Hopkins (an Alleyne application) should apply broadly to sentence challenges | Hopkins addressed § 6317 specifically and does not control cases not involving § 6317 | Hopkins is inapplicable because Chandler’s case does not involve § 6317 |
| Whether Alleyne applies retroactively to collateral cases | Alleyne-based rule should affect collateral petitions like Chandler’s | Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review per Pennsylvania precedent | Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review; cannot support timeliness exception |
| Whether Alleyne would affect Chandler’s mandatory sentence under § 9715 | Alleyne’s rule on facts that increase mandatory minimums affects § 9715 sentence | § 9715’s mandatory life based on a prior conviction is not within Alleyne’s scope; Almendarez-Torres allows prior-conviction fact-finding | Alleyne does not disturb § 9715 in this context; prior-conviction-based mandatory sentence remains valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA factual and legal determinations)
- Chester v. Commonwealth, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Stokes v. Commonwealth, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness is considered before merits)
- Holmes v. Commonwealth, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (legality-of-sentence claims must meet PCRA time limits)
- Fahy v. Commonwealth, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA timeliness requirement discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (struck down § 6317 mandatory minimums under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding that facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior convictions may be treated as sentencing facts)
- Walker v. United States, 810 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 2016) (observation that a case extending Alleyne should not apply retroactively if Alleyne itself is not retroactive)